A Study of the Gospels

8/14/2019 A Study of the Gospels

1/180

90

"IN THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES SHALLEVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED"(2 Corinthians 13:1)

INTRODUCTION

THE ESSENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENTVolume One

A STUDY OF THEGOSPELS

A COMPLETE RENDERING OF THE LIFEAND TEACHINGS OF JESUS

Written and Collated by David Allen Rivera (2008)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction2Chapter One: The Canonical Record6

Matthew......7

Mark......19Luke......27

John.......33Conclusion....41

Chapter Two: Major Prophecies in the Old Testament Concerning Jesus ................45Chapter Three: The Complete Life of Christ..50Chapter Four: What Jesus Taught Us (The Main Points)....153Map: Palestine at the Time of Christ....176

Acknowledgements..177Bibliography..178


2/180

2INTRODUCTION

For many years, because of the extensive research I had done on the New World Order,the brunt of my Bible study revolved around Eschatology or end-time prophecy although Iwould meander into other areas when pursuing studies on other projects. I had always wantedto study the entire Bible, but I never got around to it.

Back in 1974, I had written a high school term paper called "From Ape to Adam?" It wasan attack against evolution, because even at that age, I chose to believe that God created manin His image. Back at that time I began to collect research material on the book of Genesis, andover the course of a few years I eventually completed a 217-page rough draft it is still a roughdraft. Then in January, 1999, I began planning strategy for an intensive Bible study, which I wasgoing to put on my website. That idea got derailed as I became sidetracked with other things.

In 2008, I came to a point in my life where I had started to evaluate a lot of things. Ilooked at what I had done, and the fruit that it bore. I looked around at the legacy I was leavingand realized that it was not how I wanted people to remember me. As I began to get rid of theclutter in my lifethingsdistractionsI began to see a clearer picture of where God wantedme to be. I had gotten sidetracked and lost focus so it would be necessary to reformat my

course of study.I wanted to have a better understanding of the Bible, and the only way to do that, is to

have a singular focus and commitment to study it but not as another research project. Insteadit would have to become a lifestyle, it would have to become part of my genetic make-up, itwould have to be who I am. Only then could I hope for God to reveal those hidden things thatwould bring insight and revelation.

To anyone who studies the Bible, without a doubt, it is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christwho is the keystone of the entire Book. So, I wanted to begin my study with Him.

When I began to study each Gospel, I got the sense that there was a better way toapproach it. If the Bible is the divine Word of God, then its contents should dovetail and

corroborate each other. This means, that you should be able to combine all four Gospels into asingular narrative that lends itself to more efficient study. Amazingly, I found out that somethinglike that wasn't really available, and prospects of it were avoided, because there are subtledifferences that seem to prevent that from being possible.

I say again, if the Bible is the divine Word of God, then there has to be a reason for anydiscrepancies. One subtle difference is that the sequence of events varies from Gospel toGospel. When you understand the nature and intent of the authors of the Gospels, then youbegin to get a feel for how they are handling their subject. In that regard, I tried very hard toadhere to Matthewbecause of his probable background for keeping organized records.

Then there are the differences in numbering. In Matthew, there are two possessed withdevils,1two blind men,2and one angel;3in Mark, there is one possessed,4one blind man,5and

one angel;6

and in Luke, there is one possessed,7

one blind man,8

and two angels;9

and in John,

1 Matthew 8:28

2 Matthew 20:30

3 Matthew 28:2

4 Mark 5:2

5 Mark 10:46

6 Mark 16:5

7 Luke 8:278 Luke 18:35


3/180

3there are two angels.

10On the surface, this would appear to be cause for alarm, and I pondered

this inaccuracy for a time. Then it occurred to me these four were not educated to be writersMatthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician, and John was a fisherman. In the OldTestament, the prophet Jeremiah had a scribe named Baruch;

11 and in the New Testament,

Paul had a scribe named Tertius to help him with the book of Romans,12

and Peter hadSilvanus.13But the Gospel writers had no one to assist them. Therefore we are left with theirrecollections as best as they were able to put them into words. Today, when you read books,

magazines, and newspapers, they have been tidied-up by editors for spelling, grammar,punctuation, and style. But the Gospel writers didn't have that opportunity. Instead we havebeen left with a raw document giving their account, from their point of view. My gut feeling is,that when a writer describes "one," when another describes "two," it's because they havefocused on the one who was noteworthy, or whose words were recorded. This deviation inliterary composition should not detract from the overall document.

Then I had to decide on what style I was going to use. Although I was sure this has beendone before, I found a few that utilized different formats and styles: The Harmony of the GospelsFor Historical Study: An Analytical Synopsis of the Four Gospels (1932) by Wm. Arnold Stevensand Ernest DeWitt Burton, presented in 4 parallel columns; "The Four Gospels Paralleled (or AHarmony of the Gospels)" by A. T. Robertson and "The Interwoven Gospels (or The Four-in-

One Gospel)" by William M. Reese (part of the The System Bible Study, 1938), TheCombinedGospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (1947) by Russell Hubbard White, presented in acombined text but preserving all chapter and verse designations; "Harmony of the Gospels,"part of the Holy Bible (KJV, Master Reference Bible, 1968), The Reese Chronological Bible(1977) by Edward Reese; an online version of the out-of-print 1973 book by Charles B.Templeton called Jesus, A Bible in Modern English: A Blending and Paraphrase of the FourGospels, which sought to tell the story of Jesus in up-to-date language, and the 2007 book All

About Jesus, compiled by Roger Quy, using language from the NIrV.I wanted the rendering to be a narrative, and I also wanted something more accurate

and therefore wanted to keep the original language of the Authorized King James Version,which I consider to be the most accurate rendering of the Holy Scriptures. Surprisingly, this

worked out better than expected. At places where I had to put in words to bridge passages, I putbrackets around those words to differentiate it from the surrounding text. Also, I have addedclarification to make the King's English a bit easier to understand, and to give some directionwhen necessary. They have also been bracketed.

Another reason I wanted to retain the language of the King James Version, is that I didn'twant this being perceived as an attempt to overshadow Scriptural authority, as some versionsdo. It is for study purposes only. It is an educational tool. In addition, because I didn't want it toseem as though the individual authors of the Gospels were being pushed out of the picture, Ihave prefaced this work with some background information on each of the Gospels. It isimportant to remember that there are a number of reasons why there are four Gospels in theNew Testament Canon, and this information will make it easier to understand why there are

differences in style and substance.Besides the four Gospels, I have expanded the concept to consider other relevant New

Testament passages that pertain to Jesus.

9 Luke 24:410

John 20:1211

Jeremiah 45:112

Romans 16:2213

1 Peter 5:12


4/180

4Having done that, in my quest to present as complete a picture as possible, I pondered

the idea of buttressing the text with information from early Christian writings that never made itinto the accepted Canon. Long scrutinized, with most found to not be inspired and accurate, forthe most part, these writings have been disregarded and relegated to obscurity. My intentionwas not to blend them into the main part of the text, but to bracket and footnote the informationto only to play a supporting role in supplying additional depth to the whole.

My fear was that my credibility would be called into question, so it was with great care

and discernment that I began to study over a hundred different documents that I have compiledthrough the years.

The problem with these writings is that because they have been referred to in some ofthe writings of early Church Fathers, leaders, and historians; or they are extant, and can bedated with some certainty; we can determine when they were written. But just because theyemerged at the time of the Gospels and during the establishment of the Church, we can'tassume that they are accurate.

This collection of writings include documents by unknown authors who named them afteran Apostle, or another recognizable figure, to give them more appeal (pseudepigrapha); or sectsunable to fully accept Christianity, who began blending in their own interpretations thatrepresented their philosophy (Gnosticism); individuals who wrote apocryphal gospels and texts

that record events of a supernatural nature intended to impress pagans; and history that doesnot appear in the accepted Canon, and therefore can not be corroborated. While some can bedismissed as outright fabrications, others walk a fine line of presenting a good mixture ofinformation that parallels the Gospels, but also contains small details that can't be reconciledand "new" information that can't really be verified.

Because there is a wealth of this kind of material, as a researcher, I long for discoveriesthat corroborate the Bible, and provide additional information but not at the expense of truth.Not long ago I was on a Christian website that quoted from the 6th verse of The (Lost) GospelAccording to Peter, the remnant of an apocryphal document believed to have been writtenbetween AD 100 and 130. It said: "And then they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord,and laid him upon the earth, and the whole earth quaked"14 According to the Gospels, the

earthquake occurred right after Jesus died; and his body was taken down from the cross thatevening by Joseph and Nicodemus. So, even though this document carried a lot of weight in theearly Church because of how much it was similar to the Gospels, just in the section thatremains, there are twenty-nine subtle variations from the accepted Canon; and some, like thetwo mentioned, are completely inaccurate. Some scholars today consider it to be Docetic (aGnostic sect that denied that Christ's body was real flesh and blood)15propaganda.

And then there is The Report of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea; Which was sent toTiberius Caesar in Rome, one of seven Syriac documents in the British Museum that date backto the sixth or seventh century; which is considerably different than Pilate's Report to TiberiusCaesar, Emperor of Rome, one of 9 documents discovered by Rev. W. D. Mahan, which hepublished in The Archko Volume. And then when you compare them with The Gospel of

Nicodemus (formerly called The Acts of Pontius Pilate), now believed to be a fourth centurydocument that was falsely attributed to Nicodemus you get a different story. All seem credible,presenting a mixture of facts from the accepted Canon, but also a substantial amount of "new"

14 Hone, William (Editor). "The Lost Gospel According to Peter." The Lost Books of the Bible. New York, NY:

Cosimo Classics, 2007, pg. 282.

15Leitch, Addison H. "Docetism." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1975, Vol. 2, pg. 151.


5/180

5information that tends to paint a more positive image of Pilate. Which one, if any, is accurate?

Are any pieces of the "new" information in any of the narratives true?So you can see, this aspect of the research presented quite the dilemma. Of course, I

made matters worse by raising the bar. For example, if a document contained information foundin the canonical Gospels that did not deviate from known facts, and other information that wasdifferent from the accepted Canon, but presented "new" information that seemed credible; doyou use what could be true, and throw out the rest, or does the presence of any inaccuracies

make the entire document suspect. I believe it does.There are many apocryphal writings that contain the sayings, words, and teachings of

Jesus. Almost without fail, they are totally out of character with what we find in the Gospels.Some of these writings contain secret teaching and doctrine, yet the accepted Canon showsJesus as teaching publicly and ministering openly. Jesus said: "I spake openly to the world; Iever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secrethave I said nothing."

16Some of the teaching in these early Christian documents border on the

mystical and the metaphysical, yet the accepted Canon shows Jesus ministering in parables tosimplify his teaching.

Though there may be some factual information somewhere among all of these writings,and some basis of truth, I found it difficult to justify; and when it was all said and done, I was a

bit disappointed, because I didn't find anything I believed could be presented as being credible.As accurate as I've tried to be, this is still a flawed work. I say that, because there will be

detractors who will find fault with some aspect of it. And there's nothing wrong with that,because I may be wrong. I know that there are some students of the Bible who will question mysequential placement of events. Along with my interpretation of the Gospel accounts, I alsoconsulted the research of several well-known scholars in order to make my determination. Whatis important though, is that the described event is accurately rendered. Know that I've done mybest to produce a scholarly work that is worthy of your consideration.

In the end, because the combined narrative is able to stand on its own, in the literarysense, it is my hope that it is a blessing to you. By bringing it all together in a singular focus,while maintaining each author's style and prophetic significance, it should bring clarity to those

who yearn for a more intimate understanding of God's Word and the teachings of the LordJesus Christ.

16John 18:20


6/180

6CHAPTER ONE

THE CANONICAL RECORD

The time between Malachi (the end of the Old Testament) and the birth of the Messiahwas about 450 years. The first prophet that was heard at the end of that period was John the

Baptist, and he was sent to herald the coming of the Messiah Jesus, the Son of the living God.His ministry on earth was primarily recorded by the four Gospels found at the beginning of theNew Testament.

The name "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua." His true Hebrewname is Yahshua. The Hebrew word "Messiah," means "anointed," which is khristos in theGreek, christus in the Latin, and "Christ" in English.17

The word "gospel" comes from the Anglo-Saxon god spell which various scholars havesaid is translated as god or "good," and spel, meaning, "history, narrative, doctrine, mystery,secret" or "message."18But most modern translations indicate that it means "good news." Sincethe Greek term was evangelos(which meant "bringing good news"), the authors of the Gospelswere called "evangelists." The writers were also given the title "Saint," from the Latin sanctus,

which means "holy." This was a term which described those Jews who were faithful to the Law,while the Christian usage had more to do with salvation and shunning sin.19

Because Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar, they are known as the "SynopticGospels." The term "Synoptic" is from the Greek, and has to do with things being seen "with oneeye."20 Nevertheless, each of the writers presents their recollections of the ministry of Jesusfrom a different point of view. Matthew presents Jesus as King (theocratic), Mark portrays Himas a Servant (practical activity), Lukeshows Him as a Man (universalistic, human-sympathetic),and John proclaims Him as God 21(divine).22

17 Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books, Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,

1981, pg. 773.

18Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 17.19 Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books, Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,1981, pg. 770.

20Ibid., pg. 770.21

Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Mark. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism Press, 1996,

Vol. 8, pg. 280.

22 Orr, James. "Jesus Christ." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1631.


7/180

7THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

28 Chapters | 1,071 Verses | 23,684 Words

Who Was Matthew?

According to the Gospel writers Mark and Luke, the author of this Gospel is known asLevi, yet called himself Matthew ("gift of Yahweh," from the Greek Maththaos

23 and "gift of

Jehovah," from the Hebrew Mattithyah24), probably after becoming a disciple (as did Simon,when he became Peter).

25 With the name Levi, it has been implied that he may have been from

the tribe of Levi, or the Levites the priestly tribe who was in charge of Temple worship.26He is the son ofAlphaeus, which is also the name of James' (the Less) father; however,

they are never mentioned as being brothers. Yet some scholars claim that Matthew was thebrother of James, Judas (not Iscariot), and Simon Zelotes. In addition, it was also believed thehe and his brothers were cousins to Jesus, as Matthew's mother was the wife of Cleopas andsister to the Mary27who was the mother of Jesus.28

His job was that of a publican, or someone responsible for collecting taxes, which

represented the tribute paid by Israel to the Roman government who was the presiding authorityin the region at the time. It is believed that there were two classes of publicans: men of stature,who rented the privilege of farming the taxes from the Romans; and the other, those under themwho did the actual collection work which is what Matthew did.29

More closely scrutinized, Matthew was probably a telone, or an official who oversaw acustoms station, such as the major border crossing at Capernaum, where there were twodifferent levies collected: a sea tax that had to be paid by fisherman, and a land border taxplaced on goods transported on the Via Maris, a major trade route between Damascus and theMediterranean Sea. It crossed the land of Philip the Tetrarch, the Galilean border of Herod

Antipas, and took in a junction that lead to Tyre and Chorazin. Because of such a strategiclocation, it would stand to reason that Matthew would have been an important customs official

23 Whitwell, W.M. "Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1964, pg. 516.

24Purves, George Tybout. "Matthew." A Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955, pg.

482.

25 Jackson, Rev. W.F.B. "The Lives, Transactions, Sufferings and Martyrdoms of the Holy Apostles andEvangelists of Our Saviour Jesus Christ." The Holy Bible: Edition of the Bimillennium, Canada: American HeritageSociety, 1999, pg. 8.

26Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, NY: Galilee, Doubleday Books,Random House, Inc., 1996, pg. 18.

27Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25

28 Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Matthew. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism Press,

1995, Vol. 7, pg. 1.



8/180

8possibly even holding a lease on the station. Plus, Luke recorded that Matthew held a banquetin honor of Jesus at his house which indicates that he was a man of some financial stature.

30

Thus, it is assumed, because he appeared to be working for a government which wasoppressing the Jews, he was disliked greatly.

At the time that Jesus came to Capernaum, Matthew was also there, because it was agood place to collect taxes, as there were roads from there to Jerusalem, Damascus and Tyre.When Jesus went down to the shore of the lake, followed by a crowd of people, and after

crossing the beach, stepped onto the pier where the boats would have docked, with peoplecoming and going, goods being imported and exported, and people were being assessed dutiesand taxes that were collected by Matthew. Jesus passed by Matthew as he sat at the "receipt ofcustom,"and said to him: "Follow me."It has been theorized, that because this exchange wasso brief, that Jesus had met and spoke with him previously, attempting to recruit him; and just ashe did with Peter, and allowed him to return to his responsibilities until Jesus needed him.Matthew "left all,"got up, and became a follower and disciple of Jesus.

31

After his service with the Lord, it was said that he preached in Palestine for a few years32

(perhaps as long as 15 years)33 and then went to Parthia, Persia, Media, Syria;34 and thenfinally to Egypt and Ethiopia (Africa) where he preached for 23 years. The Eastern Church saidthat he died a peaceful death, while Western tradition claims that he died a martyr during the

reign of Domitian killed by a sword.35 Another source said he was speared with a halberd inAD 60.36 And yet another source said that he was slain with a battle axe in Nadabah in AD 60.37

Somewhere else it says that after writing his Gospel, he went to Ethiopia, where he wasprotected by their king (Aeglippus). After the king died, they were ruled by a cruel man known as

30 Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, NY: Galilee/Doubleday

Books/Random House, Inc., 1996, pgs. 16-17.

31Jackson, Rev. W.F.B. "The Lives, Transactions, Sufferings and Martyrdoms of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists

of Our Saviour Jesus Christ." The Holy Bible: Edition of the Bimillennium, Canada: American Heritage Society,1999, pg. 8.

32Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing

House, 1965, pg. 413.


1995, Vol. 7, pg. 1.

34 Crowder, John. Miracle Workers, Reformers, and the New Mystics. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image

Publishers, 2006, pg. 47.


36 Crowder, John. Miracle Workers, Reformers, and the New Mystics. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image

Publishers, 2006, pg. 47.

37 Foxe, John. Foxe's Book of Martyrs (A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the EarlyChristians and the Protestant Martyrs), circa 1560.


9/180

9Hytacus, who persecuted Christians. Matthew was nailed to the ground, and then beheaded,

38

at Nad-davar in AD 70.39

Who Wrote Matthew?

We have no proof of this Gospel's authorship, or even the other three, because they were

all written anonymously. From the early second century, to the present, it's been assumed that itwas the first Gospel to be written, and was written by Matthew because of the detail, thefrequent mention of money, and his recording of statistics. Since Matthew was fluent in Aramaicand Greek (and it has been suggested that he was able to write in some form of shorthand), wecan assume he was educated.40According to Dr. E.J. Goodspeed, the eminent New Testamentscholar, Matthew, being a tax collector, would have been trained to write and keep records, andmay have even been specifically chosen for the singular purpose of keeping an accurate recordof Christ's ministry.

41 An analysis of the writing style of Matthew shows that he tends to omit

details which he felt were not important or relevant to the scenario he was relating as opposedto Mark's more detailed style. Matthewwas more concise and to the point more business-like,as it were.

42

The contention of the early Church that the author of this Gospel was Matthew stemsfrom this verse: "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sittingat the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him."

43

This fact is supported by Markand Luke, however, they refer to him as Levi instead.44

Dr. G.E. Ladd wrote: "If Matthew wrote a first edition of his Gospel in Aramaic for the

Jewish-Christian community in Antioch and Mark wrote a gospel in Rome embodying thePetrine tradition, it is entirely credible that when Matthew later produced a second edition inGreek, he made free use of the Petrine gospel, thereby adding his own testimony to its authorityand proving that the apostolic witness to Christ was not divided." Since to some, it appears thatPeter was the source of Mark's Gospel, because it was he, and not Peter that translated it intoGreek, Mark has been identified as its author, and as such, Matthew has been identified with his

Gospel.45

38Witmer, Dallas. The Faith Worth Dying For. Farmington, NM: Lamp and Light Publishers, Inc., 1994, pg. 4.

39Braght, Thieleman J. van. The Bloody Theater (or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians). Scottsdale, PA:

Herald Press, 1950.

40 Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, NY: Galilee/Doubleday

Books/Random House, Inc., 1996, pg. 17.

41 Petersen, L.M. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, Vol. 4, pg. 124.

42 France, R.T. Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 2000, pg. 22.

43 Matthew 9:9

44 Petersen, L.M. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, Vol. 4, pg. 122.

45Wessel, Walter W. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1964, pg. 517.


10/180

10Among other reasons for Matthew being identified as the author of this Gospel, is the

humble manner in which he tells the story of the feast he gave in honor of Jesus; and the factthat the writer was a Jew, freed from ritualistic Judaism to become a Christian.46

Where Was Matthew Written?

Early in the second century, Ignatius(surnamed Theophorus, died c. AD 110), Bishop ofAntioch (Syria) and Church Father, referred to Matthewas "the Gospel," so it would seem that itwas the most likely place of origin, given the Gentile-Jewish character of the Church in

Antioch.47

The statement made by Luke inActs11:26, that "the disciples were called Christiansfirst in Antioch," is a strong argument for that being the case.48 However, being that it waswritten for the Jews,49 and he continued to preach in Judea for a number of years, somescholars believe that he wrote his account in Judea, or Jerusalem.

50

What Language Was Matthew Written In?

While nearly all the books in the New Testament Canon were probably initially written inthe Greek language,51 it has been traditionally accepted that Matthew originally recorded theevents of the life of Jesus in Aramaic (or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the language at the time ofChrist)52; then later translated and composed his Gospel into the Koin or common Greek.53Inthe early manuscripts it was known as Kata Matthaion ("According to Matthew")."54

46Purves, George Tybout. "Matthew." A Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955, pg.483.

47

Wessel, Walter W. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1964, pg. 517.





1995, Vol. 7, pg. 1.

51 Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books/Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,

1981, pg. 771.

52 Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown.A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments . Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, Vol. 3, pg. xxviii.

53 Kent, Jr., Homer A. "Introduction to Matthew." The Holy Bible: Master Reference Bible (King James Version,

Family and Library Reference Edition, Nashville, TN: Royal Publishers, Inc., 1968, pg. 817.

54Wilkinson, Bruce and Kenneth Boa. Talk Thru the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, pg.308.


11/180

11There is a tradition that indicates that Matthew made a copy in Hebrew and a copy in

Greek.55

It was Papias(c. 60-130), Bishop of Hierapolisin Phrygia(Asia Minor), who in his lostAD 130 work Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, wrote that Matthew recorded the sayings ofJesus in Hebrew. He wrote, as quoted by the Church historian and scholar Eusebius, Bishop ofCaesarea (surnamed Pamphili, c. 260-340) in his Ecclesiastical History (AD 325): "Matthewwrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."56Eusebiusalso wrote that "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was

about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thuscompensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence."57Jerome (alsoknown as Eusebius Hieronymus, c. 340-420, the leading Biblical scholar of his time) wrote in hisPrologue to the Gospels: "Matthew the tax collector with the cognomen Levi, is the first of all tohave published a Gospel in Judea in the Hebrew tongue. It was produced for the sake of thoseJews who had believed in Jesus and who were serving the true Gospel at a time when theshadow of the Law had not disappeared."

58

In addition, were the testimonies of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons in Asia Minor (c. AD177-200, one of the Fathers of the Greek Church, who studied under Polycarp), who wrotebefore the Eusebius statement ("Matthew, among the Hebrews, put forth a written Gospel intheir own tongue"); Pantaenus, head of a Christian school in Alexandria, c. 180-200, who

taught Clement of Alexandria ("the Apostle Bartholomew is said to have preached, leavingthem this writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters"); and Origen (surnamed Adamantius, c. AD185-254), eminent scholar, writer and teacher in Alexandria ("the first Gospel was written byhim who once was a publican but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, and that,having drawn it up in Hebrew letters, he issued it for the Jewish believers."). As impressive asthis evidence sounds, most likely the observations were all based on the original statement ofPapias.

59

But there are also some scholars who insist that it is not the Gospel of Matthew they aretalking about, but an apocryphal Gospel written in Aramaic that emerged in Southern Arabiaabout AD 170. It exists now only in quotations found in the writings of the historian Hegesippus(died c. AD 180), Origen, Eusebius and Jerome. Because it appeared to be an expanded

version of Matthew's Gospel, except for minor differences, Jewish Christians thought that it wasalso his work, till it was later identified as the Gospel According to the Hebrews (which isconfusing because there is another different text in the accepted Canon identified by this name;and the Gospel of the Ebionites has also been identified by this name), the Gospel of theTwelve Apostles, or the Gospel of the Nazoreans (also found as Nazarenes or Nazaraens).60

55 Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study New Testament (KJV). Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers,1991, pg. 1.

56Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace (Editors). A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the ChristianChurch. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, Vol. 1, pg. 173.

57Ibid., Vol. 1, pg. 152-153.

58 Petersen, L.M. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:


59Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, Vol. 3, pgs. xxviii-xxix.

60Schodde, G.H. "The Gospel of Matthew." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 2010.


12/180

12Some have believed that this referred to an Aramaic Gospel that he wrote prior to the

Greek Gospel for the Jewish Christians in Palestine, and others think that it referred to anAramaic compilation of the words of Jesus that were recorded by Matthew. There have beenseveral arguments against this assumption:

1) The Gospel contains a full account of Jesus' public ministry and not just a record of what hesaid.

2) An analysis by Biblical scholars indicates that Matthew has included nearly the entire book ofMark (and Luke used about half of Mark),61 though in an abbreviated form (about 45% ofMatthewcan be found in Mark),

62so he could make room for his own material.

63 If Markwas

used as a source, which was written in Greek, then theoretically it can be assumed that Matthewwas originally written in Greek. However, it seems unlikely that Matthew would have usedMark's Gospel as a source because it is unknown whether Mark even knew Jesus, so whywould Matthew do that since he could relate things he saw and heard for himself. Because Markhad accompanied Peter, it is his ministry and relating of events that Mark drew upon to write hisGospel.64

3) Scholars believe that Matthew may have also used another source a record of the wordsand teachings of Jesus, because there seems to be some identical passages in Luke (about20% of Matthewcan be found in Luke),

65even in the same order, which is not found in Mark.

Therefore there has been some conjecture that both Matthew and Luke referenced the samesource to expand on what they took from Mark. Matthewand Lukeshare about 200 of the sameverses, written in a similar style, which do not appear in Mark.66 This stems from the fringeteaching from some Biblical scholars, that Matthew (as well as Luke) compiled his Gospel byextracting the words and sayings of Jesus from a common original "source" of the teachings ofJesus, from what has come to be known as the Book of Q (from the German word quellemeaning "source")

67, blending them with Mark's Gospel, believed to be the earliest Gospel,




63Tasker, R.V.G. "Gospel of Matthew." New Bible Dictionary, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1962,

pg. 750.

64Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1965, pg. 414.




67Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, HarperSanFrancisco,

1995, pg. 47.


13/180

13written just after the destruction of Jerusalem, and then adding in some of his own information.

68

However, while some scholars believe that Mark wrote his Gospel sometime after the death ofPeter in AD 64, Clement of Alexandria (in Egypt, c. 150-220, a Church Father) has recorded thatMark was distributed while Peter was still alive at Rome,69which clouds the matter even more.The Augustinian or classic view is that the Gospel of Matthew was used by Mark, and then Lukeused both of them. The Griesbach Hypothesis, or the most widely held belief, is that Matthew'sGospel was used by Luke, and then Mark condensed both of them into a singular narrative.70

4) There is a substantial amount of information not found in any other Gospels.71 Among the 15parables and 20 miracles found in the Gospel of Matthew, 10 parables and 3 miracles are notrecorded in any of the other Gospels,

72 or over 300 verses."

73

When Was Matthew Written?

The traditional dating of the Gospels has been: Mark (AD 65-70), MatthewandLuke (AD80-85), and John (AD 95-100). If this is correct, it isn't likely that someone would be able tousurp the names of the actual authors of the works, since there would have been first

generation Christians and contemporaries of the writers who would know who the authorswere.74

Some Church Fathers had hinted at an early date of AD 37 or 38 for Matthew, as well aslater scholars like Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, and Tragelles; however, there is noevidence to support that.75 Many early manuscripts have notations at the end of the Gospel thatindicate it was written in AD 41, the eighth year after the Ascension.

76

In dating Matthew, the estimates of its origin have ranged from AD 40 to 140.However,there appears two terms, "to this day"77and "until this day"78which seem to indicate that many

68Ibid., pg. 162.



70Ibid., pg. 35.71

Kee, Howard Clark. "Introduction to Matthew." The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible,

Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971, pg. 609.

72 Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study New Testament (KJV). Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers,1991, pg. 1.

73 Petersen, L.M. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:


74Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, NY: Galilee, Doubleday Books,

Random House, Inc., 1996, pg. 16.


MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, Vol. 3, pg. xxvii.

76Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 18.77

Matthew 27:8


14/180

14years had elapsed since the occurrence of the events that were recorded in the narrative.

79 It

also indicates that because there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, when theRomans attacked the city in AD 70, that Matthew had to be written before that, making it theearliest Gospel.

80 However, an opposing view maintains that a statement in the parable of the

marriage feast is actually referring to the fall of Jerusalem: "But when the king heard thereof, hewas wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up theircity."81This is very circumstantial.

If, as speculated, Matthew did use Mark as a source, then the dating of that Gospelwould help determine the date of Matthew, which most fundamental scholars and researchersplace in the time frame of AD 58 to 68.82 Copies of Matthew's Gospel showed up in the late 80sin the Jewish Christian community,

83Clement of Rome (died c. AD 100) knew of this Gospel in

AD 96, and a few scholars say that in his Epistles (c. AD 110-115), Ignatius, indicated afamiliarity with the Gospel of Matthew.84 The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, thought to beauthentic and canonical by Clement, Origen and Jerome (but not Eusebius), and believed tohave been written by an anonymous Alexandrian Christian before AD 132, in 3:17 (shortversion),85 and 4:14 of the longer J.B. Lightfoot translation says: "as the scripture saith,many are called but few are chosen." This is a direct quote from Matthew22:14.86In AD 175,Irenaeus, places it during the time "while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome

and founding the Church."87 Eusebius wrote that the Gospel was written when Matthew leftPalestine to preach to others,88and prior to AD 180, it was the most quoted Gospel in Christian

78Matthew 28:15

79Wilkinson, Bruce and Kenneth Boa. Talk Thru the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, pgs.

308-309.

80Kent, Jr., Homer A. "Introduction to Matthew." The Holy Bible: Master Reference Bible (King James Version,Family and Library Reference Edition, Nashville, TN: Royal Publishers, Inc., 1968, pg. 817.

81Matthew 22:7

82Wilkinson, Bruce and Kenneth Boa. Talk Thru the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, pg.

309.

83Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, HarperSanFrancisco,

1995, pg. 47.


85Hone, William (Editor). "The General Epistle of Barnabas." The Lost Books of the Bible. New York, NY: CosimoClassics, 2007, pg. 146.

86Schodde, G.H. "The Gospel of Matthew." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 2010.


88Schodde, G.H. "The Gospel of Matthew." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 2012.


15/180

15literature,

89which is why it appears first in the New Testament Canon.

90In all early canons, lists

and scriptureMatthew always came first.91In the early Church, this Gospel was given the titleKata Matthaion(According to Matthew).92

The baptismal formula found in Matthew93can be compared to a similar mention in a laterbenediction;

94and the use of the word ekklesia (Strong's # 1577, "assembly, church") for an

organized group of people95was also used by Stephen,96Paul,97and98James.99In Matthew,100there is evidence for an earlier dating for this Gospel because it describes

the towns of Israel as places of refuge during a time of persecution, which would not haveincluded the non-Jewish town of Pella in what is now Jordan, where the Christians did run to in

AD 66. This observation prompted Theodor Zahn (a professor of New Testament Studies) towrite is his 1903 Commentary on Matthew: "Matthewwould hardly have written verse 23 if theescape of the Christians (to Pella) had already taken place at the time of his writing. Our Gospelis written before AD 66."101

A relatively recent announcement has bolstered the case for an early appearance ofMatthew. The library at Magdalen College in Oxford possesses three small papyrus fragments(the largest of which is 1-5/8" X "), with Greek writing on both sides, 102containing a partial textfrom the 26th chapter (26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31, 32-33) of Matthew. They had been acquiredfrom Egypt in 1901 by Rev. Charles Bousfield Huleatt (1863-1908), an Anglican chaplain at a

hotel in Luxor.103A facsimile of them had been published in 1953; so they were already wellknown to scholars who believed them to be from a second century codex (pages bound in a

89Wessel, Walter W. "Gospel of Matthew." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1964, pg. 517.

90 Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers,

HarperSanFrancisco, 1995, pg. 47.




308.

93 Matthew 28:19

94 2 Corinthians 13:1495

Matthew 16:18, 18:1796

Acts 7:3897

Acts 20:2898

James 5:14

99Purves, George Tybout. "Matthew." A Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955, pg.

484.

100Matthew 10:23



102Ibid., pg. 1.

103Ibid., pg. 75.


16/180

16book, as opposed to a scroll) because they were papyrus (the change to parchment was at thebeginning of the third century), and they were from a codex (the change from scrolls took placein the second century). The fragments were comparable to other such New Testament texts thatdated to the second and third centuries, and the second century dating was consistent with whatis known about the writing, copying, and distribution of writings in the early Christian churchbetween the second and fourth century.104

Huleatt, an "amateur scholar,"105 believed them to be from a third century codex, while

Arthur Hunt, a Senior Demy at Magdalen, felt they were from the fourth century. They wereplaced in a display cabinet in the library, in the cloisters, which was no longer accessible. In1953, Colin H. Roberts (British papyrologist), the first editor for the publication of the fragments,re-dated them to the late second century (AD 180-200).

106

There are two other fragments, kept at the Fundacion Sant Lluc Evangelista inBarcelona, Spain, that contain text from Matthew 3:9 and 3:15, and its paleographiccharacteristics are so close to that of the Magdalen Papyrus, that it is believed that they arefrom the same codex.

107 The Spanish papyrologist Ramn Roca-Puig confirmed Roberts

findings in 1956 when he published the Barcelona fragments. Roberts recognized thesefragments as coming from the same codex, and Roca-Puig did as well, agreeing with the late2nd century date.

108

Carsten Peter Thiede, a German Biblical scholar, papyrologist (Director of the Institute forBasic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany),109and a leading authority on ancientmanuscripts,

110has insisted that the fragments should more correctly be dated to the mid-first

century (soon after AD 62, and up to the paleographic date of about AD 66)111 because thewriting was in uncial script (upright, block letters), a style that was discontinued in the firstcentury, which is similar to some Greek texts from Pompey and Herculaneum that have beendated to the first century.

112 Because the fragments are so small, it is not possible to have them

radiocarbon-dated.113





106Ibid., pgs. 96-97.

107Ibid., pgs. 64-65.

108Ibid., pgs. 114-115.

109Ibid., pg. 1.

110Ibid., pg. 118.

111Ibid., pg. 52.

112 Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers,HarperSanFrancisco, 1995, pg. 9.

113Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, NY: Galilee, Doubleday Books,Random House, Inc., 1996, pg. 71.


17/180

17Peter Parsons of Oxford University, a well-known authority in international papyrology,

when he had drawings of letters (from the book of Leviticus) from the Qumran fragments,unknowingly illustrated the similarity with the letters of the Magdalen Papyrus (as well as theBarcelona fragments), in that the letters are touching, or almost touching each other a stylethat had been nearly abandoned by the second and third centuries.

114 The fragment from

Leviticus (4QLXXLev) from Qumran Cave 4, as well as a fragment (7Q6) from Cave 7, whichwere dated to the late first century BC; and the lettering style of fragments found in the

excavation of Herculaneum, which predate AD 79; are very similar to the Magdalen andBarcelona papyrus fragments, and Thiede believes that this is conclusive proof that thefragments are from first century documents before AD 70.115

Thiede also pointed out that a Greek fragment of Mark's Gospel (6:52-53) wasdiscovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which proves there was a placement of early Christianwritings at the Essene community in Qumran before the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed.116Thiede concluded that a papyrus fragment from Cave 7, identified as 7Q5, consisting of twentyGreek letters on five lines (with ten damaged), should be dated before AD 68, and possibly asearly as AD 50. Because it didn't have any words of Jesus on it, it lessened the possibility that itwas from the supposed document representing a collection of Jesus' sayings (The Gospel ofThomas).

117

Plus, if the early Christians were concerned about the preservation of their writings, theywould have started using codices at an earlier time.118 Beginning in AD 62 (another source saysthat James, the son of Alpheus, was dragged from the Temple, stoned, and beaten to deathwith a club in AD 63),119with the killing of James, there was a complete break between the Jewsand the Christians of the growing church. They began to abandon the use of scrolls, anddeveloped the codex, which was more convenient, because text could be written on both sidesof a sheet; and it was easier to handle and store, and a better way to distribute a collection oftexts.120

Thiede believes that Matthew was written in the mid-first century by a disciple, most likelyMatthew, who was an eye witness to the ministry and miracles of Jesus. If events were recordedabout things he didn't witness, then he surely used the testimony of those who were.121The very

fact that the fragments contain an abbreviation for Jesus, as well as the term "Lord," indicated

114Ibid., pg. 119.

115Ibid., pgs. 119-121.





119Van Braght, Thieleman J. The Bloody Theater (or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians. Scottdale, PA:

Herald Press, 1950.


Random House, Inc., 1996, pgs. 51-52.

121Ibid., pg. 165.


18/180

18that the author of the Gospel believed that the subject of his narrative was divine.

122 The

abbreviations "IS" and "KE" for the Greek words iesous (Jesus) and kyrios (Lord), were widelyused among early Christians, and Roberts believed that this concept originated in one of twoearly Christian communities the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church of Antioch.

123

Some scholars have criticized Thiede's claims, saying:

1) There was no Gospel of Matthew that early.

2) Research on the lettering style by Italian scholar Guglielmo Cavallo claim that theuncial script used were from a later period (as late as AD 85, a traditional date somescholars give for Matthew). Thiede had based his analysis on papyrus from areas of theRoman Empire that could not be compared to, and had no relation with the place of originof the Magdalen Papyrus. If Huleatt bought the fragments in Egypt, there has to be anassumption that they were of Egyptian origin.

124

3) The claim for a fragment of Mark being found with the Dead Sea Scrolls has beendiscredited.125

If Thiede is correct, and Matthew was written shortly after AD 60, before the destructionof the Temple in AD 70, then it will be necessary to re-date all of the Gospels. This means thatMark was written early enough to have a copy deposited at Qumran, Luke can be considered afirst generation codice, and John was also probably written before the Temple was destroyed.

126

What was Matthew'sPoint of View?

It seems to be Matthew's intent to portray Jesus as King,127 and the fulfillment of theMessianic prophecies; and relays, in detail, the vision, principles, and growth of the kingdomthat was to be established; and that in no way did it compromise the Law of the Old

Testament.128

It appears as though evidence is being mounted, because, of the fifteen parablesand twenty miracles mentioned by Matthew, ten of the parables and three of the miracles are





124Ibid., pgs. 106-107.

125 Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers,HarperSanFrancisco, 1995, pg. 9-10.



127 Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Mark. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism Press,1996, Vol. 8, pg. 2.

128Kent, Jr., Homer A. "Introduction to Matthew." The Holy Bible: Master Reference Bible (King James Version,

Family and Library Reference Edition, Nashville, TN: Royal Publishers, Inc., 1968, pg. 817.


19/180

19not recorded in the other three Gospels.

129Though written in Greek, besides the references to

Jewish Law, Matthew retained some Jewish flavor through the use of certain untranslatedAramaic terms like raka130 and korbanas,131 as well as descriptions of Jewish customs.132Therefore, it appears that this Gospel was written to the Jews, and in fact has been categorizedas being "written by a Jew to Jews about a Jew."

133Because Matthew used the more Jewish

term "Kingdom of Heaven" (while Markand Lukeused "Kingdom of God")134a number of times,this Gospel is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Kingdom.135The Gospel of Matthew

has also been referred to as the "Ecclesiastical Gospel" because it is the only Gospel to use theword ekklesia ("church"), which seems to indicate that he was writing for, and to an organizedgroup the beginning of the Church.136

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

16 Chapters | 678 Verses | 15,171 Words

Who Was Mark?

Mark was a Jew, his Hebrew name was John (Yhanan, "Jehovah is gracious"), and heprobably adopted the surname of Mark

137when he left Judea to preach in other countries, in

order to have a name that was more familiar to Gentiles and not be confused with the discipleJohn.138 The Roman or Latin form of his name was Marcus("a large hammer").139

129Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study New Testament (KJV). Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers,1991, pg. 1.

130 Matthew 5:22

131 Matthew 27:6




308.



135 Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan

Publishing House, 1965, pg. 413.

136 France, R.T. Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 2000, pg. 20.

137Acts 12:12, 25, 15:37

138 "The Books of the Bible, Biographical and Historical." The Holy Bible: Edition of the Bimillennium. Canada:American Heritage Society, 1999, pg. 34.

139Earle, Ralph. "John Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1964, pg. 509.


20/180

20John Mark lived in Jerusalem,

140 where he may have had some associations with the

leadership of the priests. He was not one of the 12 disciples, but had ties with them. Peter refersto "my son Marcus,"141which may indicate that Peter was the one who converted Mark. Thereare some scholars who believe that he was the "young man"in the Garden who emerged nakedwhen the soldiers tried to grab a hold of him and he wrested himself away by wriggling out of thelinen garment he was wearing.142There are indications that the disciples were meeting in thehome of Mark's mother Mary,143so it's possible that a room in this house was the location of the

Last Supper, as well as where the believers met on Pentecost.144Peter must have frequentedthe house often because the servant recognized his voice145at the gate.146

This passage "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas,"147has been interpreted to indicate thathe was a nephew of Barnabas,

148but in reality he was a cousin of Barnabas,

149as that is how

the word anepsios (Strong's# 431) is more properly translated.150

Because he was related, it'spossible that Mark151was a Levite.152

After Peter's deliverance,153

Mark went to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and later wentwith them to other countries to preach,

154 but didn't stay the whole time and returned to

Jerusalem.155This caused Paul to distrust him, and when Barnabas wanted to take Mark on thesecond missionary journey, Paul's refused, which led to a disagreement which resulted inBarnabas taking Mark to Cyprus, while Paul and Silas went to Syria and Cilicia.

156There was a

140Acts 12:12141

1 Peter 5:13142

Mark 14:51-52143

Acts 12:12

144Gutzke, Manford G. (Editor). The Holy Bible: Master Reference Bible (King James Version, Family and LibraryReference Edition). Nashville, TN: Royal Publishers, Inc., 1968, pg. 851.

145Acts 12:14


147 Colossians 4:10

148 Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (KVJ). Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc.,1991, NT, pg. 137.

149 Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Colossians. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism

Press, 2000, Vol. 18, pg. 354.

150Strong, James. "A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament." The New Strong's ExhaustiveConcordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, pg. 12.151

Acts 4:36


153 Acts 12:11-12

154Acts 13:5155

Acts 13:13156

Acts 15:36-41


21/180

21reconciliation because about 11 years later Mark was with Paul during his first Romanincarceration;

157 and then near the end of his life, Paul, saying "he is useful to me for the

ministry,"158 asked Mark to go to Rome with Timothy when Paul was imprisoned there.159According to the writings of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia (this city formerly

was known as Salamis) in Cyprus (c. 315-403), and Jerome, after Mark wrote his Gospel, hewent to Egypt and started a church at Alexandria. Jerome says that he died a natural deaththere and was buried during the 8th year of Nero's reign. Other writers such as Baronius, Cave,

and Wetstein said he was martyred;160when he was seized by a mob of pagan priests and idolworshipers, who tied a rope around his neck, and dragged him through the streets of Alexandriatill he died.161

Another tradition states that Matthew's body was taken by merchants from Alexandria toVenice in AD 827, after which the Venetian Senate adopted the emblem of St. Mark (a lion) fortheir crest. When the Senate made a decision to do anything, it was said to be by the order ofSt. Mark.

162

Who Wrote Mark?

Justin Martyr, a Church Father (c. AD 100-165), quotes Mark 3:17 as coming from"Peter's Memoirs."163 Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, quoted Papias, who had written inhis Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrotedown accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said ordone by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said, hefollowed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention ofgiving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while hethus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omitany of the things he had heard, and not to state any of them falsify." 164

Also, according to Eusebius, Irenaeushad written that "Mark, the disciple and interpreterof Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."

Tertullian, a Church Father (c. AD 160-230, lived in Carthage, capital of the Roman province in

157 Colossians 4:10, Philippians 1:24

158 2 Timothy 4:11



161Braght, Thieleman J. van. The Bloody Theater (or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians). Scottsdale,PA: Herald Press, 1950.

162 Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Mark. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism Press,

1996, Vol. 8, pg. 2.

163Earle, R. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1975, Vol. 4, pg. 78.

164Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace (Editors).A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the ChristianChurch. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, Vol. 1, pgs. 172-173.


22/180

22North Africa), in his bookAgainst Marcion(c. AD 200-207)said that the Gospel was "publishedby Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was." Origen (c. AD 240),according to Eusebius, said that the second Gospel was "that according to Mark who composedit, under the guidance of Peter." Epiphanius wrote: "But immediately after Matthew, Mark,having become a follower of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted with the putting forth of aGospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of theEgyptians."165 Apparently, Mark recorded and edited the messages of Peter. This means we

have writers of two Gospels who were not eyewitnesses of the events they wrote about aPetrine source in Mark, and a Pauline source in Luke. The title for this Gospel in the earlymanuscripts was Kata Markon("According to Mark").166

For all of its claims to be influenced by Peter, the issue has been raised as to why it didnot include Peter's walking on the water,167paying the Temple tax,168and being given the keysto the kingdom,169as part of the narrative. The short answer is that Peter was not seeking tobring glory to himself, and in fact, the only mention of Peter in Mark's Gospel was him gettingrebuked. This may have stemmed from a spirit of humility adopted by Peter after everything thathad transpired, and he found it difficult to transition himself into a more active role in theChurch.170

Scholars today insist that Mark was the first Gospel, and used by Matthew and Luke for

their accounts. Over 90% of Markis in Matthew, and 50% in Luke.171Matthewhas more than600 out of Mark's 661 verses, using about 51% of Mark's actual words but is more abbreviated.Luke uses about 350 verses, with about 53% of the words being Mark's.

172 St. Augustine was

the first to say that Mark was an "abridgement" of Matthew, and was not to be perceived as anoriginal narrative. It was initially believed, that in the process of putting his Gospel together,Mark referenced Matthew and Luke, though there wasn't a lot of evidence to support thatconclusion.

173 However, the fact that there isn't anything in Matthew and Luke which is not

found in Mark, and presented in more graphic detail, gives a convincing argument that Mark didnot use Matthewor Lukeas a source.174

165Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pgs. 1989-1990.


167 Matthew 14:28-33

168 Matthew 17:24-27169

Matthew 16:19


171 Cole, R. Alan. Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 2000, pg. 31.

172 Morris, Leon. Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 2000, pg. 53.

173Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 152.174 Morris, Leon. Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 2000, pg. 53.


23/180

23The 250 verses that appear in Matthewand Luke, but not Mark, have been the passages

believed by scholars to be culled from a common source of the sayings or teachings of Jesusknown as the Q document, which is no longer extant.175 The possibility of this document ispurely theoretical, because there isn't even a mention of it by early writers. Only the apocryphalGospel of Thomascomes closes to what it possibly was, but this is a second-century Gnosticcreation. Those scholars not willing to commit to the existence of Q have suggested thatMatthewwas earlier than Luke (especially in light of Luke1:1-3), and Lukeused Matthewand

Mark.176There have been some questions from scholars about 1:1-8, 13:1-37, and 16:9-20 not

having been written by Mark,177but the focus has been basically on the end of Mark. While mostconsider everything after Mark 19:8 to not be of Markan origin, because the language doesn'tseem to fit, it is pretty much accepted that 19:8 couldn't have been the end of the work, and thatpossibly Mark's actual ending was lost, and what we now have was later added by a Churchleader. It has also been suggested that Peter's words had been used up to that point, afterwhich Mark added his own words or referenced another source.

178 Because it is viewed as not

being authentic, some old manuscripts have omitted it, as well as various Bible translations.Critical research and analysis by Ivan Panin has shown a numerical pattern in the Gospel ofMarkwhich he said was "constructed on the same plan as its last twelve verses. The Gospel as

a whole, then, as this its suspected portion are from the same artistic hand; the author of theGospel According to Markis also the author of its last twelve verses."179

The number of words in the passage (in the original Greek) of 12 verses (16:9-20) is 175(25 X 7). The number of different words is 98 (14 X 7). The 98 words have 553 letters (79 X 7),and of these, 294 letters are vowels (42 X 7) and 259 are consonants (37 x 7). Of the 175words, 56 are from Jesus (8 X 7), and the rest is 119 words (17 X 7). This is only a couple of thenumerical anomalies. Panin writes: "The first examination of this passage thus brings out atonce that fact that it is as it were labeled over with sevens, has a sort of special stampthereonThe presence of these sixteen features of sevens can be accounted for in only twoways: they are either mere coincidences, accidental, or they are designed."

180

Where Was MarkWritten?

Since it appears that Mark may have been intending his Gospel for a Roman exposure,early tradition says that it originated in Rome.

181 One clue for this is the fact that there were

175Ibid., pg. 56.176Ibid., pg. 58.177Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1992.

178Ibid., Vol. 3, pg. 1989.

179Panin, Ivan. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark(B-761). Oklahoma City, OK: Southwest Radio Church, pg. 29.

180Ibid., pgs. 6-9.181Wilkinson, Bruce and Kenneth Boa. Talk Thru the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, pg.320.


24/180

24eleven

182Latin words

183used that do not occur anywhere else in the New Testament.

184Except

for John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. AD 345-407, one of the Fathers of the GreekChurch), who said it was written in Egypt, the early Church excepted this fact. One scholar, J.V.Bartlet, believes it was written in Antioch.

185

What Language Was MarkWritten In?

With the presence of those Latin words, and the belief it was intended for the Romans, anargument had been made for the Gospel initially being written in Latin, before it was latertranslated into Greek.

186 But there has also been an argument for an Aramaic original, because

it is believed that the first part of Acts was from an Aramaic source possibly the secondGospel. However, because very few Aramaic words are retained that scenario seems highlyunlikely.

187

When Was Mark Written?

It is believed that Peter went to preach at Rome shortly after Paul's release (AD 63) fromhis first imprisonment.188After Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome about AD 64 (or AD69)

189 by Emperor Nero, Mark wrote his Gospel for the Christians at Rome to continue

spreading Peter's message. Since, in 13:2, he writes from the standpoint that the Temple isthere, then we can only assume that he wrote it before Titus' conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70.Therefore it's possible that the Gospel was written between AD 65 and 67.190 Irenaeus wrotethat after the death of Peter and Paul, "Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, even he had

182Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1989.183

Mark 6:27, 14:44, 15:39, 15:44-45

184 Earle, Ralph. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1964, pg. 510.


186Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 152.187Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1989.

188 Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Peter.". The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1964, pg. 642.189Braght, Thieleman J. van. The Bloody Theater (or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians) . Scottsdale, PA:Herald Press, 1950.



25/180

25delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter,"191so that would date Markbetween AD 64 and 68 (or later, depending on the actual date for Peter's death).

192

Some scholars feel that there may be an error in the translation of Irenaeus' quote, whichhas been left to us by Eusebius. The entire quote reads: "After the apostles were clothed withthe power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, theywent out to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those ofHebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also published

a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded thechurch in Rome. But after the departure of these, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter,even he had delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."193 Scholarshad interpreted the term "departure," to refer to death, or after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul,when in fact it might have actually been referring to "leaving" the place where Mark was. Withthis scenario, Mark may have written his Gospel somewhere between the time Peter left the city,and his death.

194 This point of view maintains that early traditions don't really confirm whether it

was written before or after Peter was martyred, making the date range for this Gospel at AD 55-65, which would make this the earliest of the four Gospels.195

This theory is given credibility because of the statement by Eusebiusin his EcclesiasticalHistory(c. AD 325) from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, and Papias: "And so greatly did

the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied withhearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, butwith all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel isextant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orallycommunicated to them. Nor did they cease until they prevailed with the man, and had thusbecome the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name Mark. And they say thatPeter, when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, waspleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for thepurpose of being read in the churches."196

Also, Eusebiuswrites: "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified towrite the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of

the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recordedby Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses."

197 Jerome wrote: "Mark, disciple and

191Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown.A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. Peabody,MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, Vol. 3, pg. xxxiv.


193Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1990.

194

Earle, R. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1975, Vol. 4, pg. 81.


196Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace (Editors).A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the ChristianChurch. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, Vol. 1, pg. 116.


MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, Vol. 3, pg. xxxiv.


26/180

26interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordancewith what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it tobe read in the churches."198

The earliest reference to Mark may possibly be in Clement of Rome's First Epistle to theCorinthians(AD 95), where 1 Clement46:8 is very similar to Mark9:42.

199

Because Matthew is believed to be the first Gospel, there is some debate on the earlydating for Mark. Some scholars believe that even if Mark knew about the conquest of

Jerusalem, it isn't certain whether or not he would have alluded to it. They believe that 12:9,13:14, and 13:30 are actually references to the Temple's destruction. If it was written after that,then it's possible that it could have been written as late as AD 75.200

What Was Mark's Point of View?

The simple message of Mark's Gospel is conveyed in one verse: "For even the Son ofman came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."201Itis through the role of a Servant that Jesus preaches, teaches, heals and does the will of theFather.

202

Because the language in this Gospel is marked by broken sentence structure, and certainexpressions, it has been suggested that it may represent Peter's method of talking, since hewas Mark's primary source of information.

203 The simple fact of the matter is that this Gospel

retains Peter's personality, because it is impulsive and aggressive, and that characteristiccontributes to its style and pacing.204 The narrative moves very quickly, with Mark using thetransitional word euthus(Strong's# 2117, "straightway," "forthwith," or "immediately") 40 times,to move from scene to scene.

205 However, we can also see Paul's influence, because there

198Farmer, J.H. "The Gospel of Mark." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Vol. 3, pg. 1990.


200Pherigo, Lindsey P. "Introduction to Mark." The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville,TN: Abingdon Press, 1971, pg. 644.

201 Mark 10:5


203Ibid., pg. 321.204Earle, R. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1975, Vol. 4, pg. 78.



27/180

27are some theological themes that are also reflected in Paul's letters, which help to understandMark's approach.

206

It is apparent that Mark wrote his Gospel for the Jewish Christians, that did not know a lotabout religious tradition.

207 That is why it is believed he was writing for a Roman readership,

because he left out things that wouldn't interest Gentiles, like the genealogy of Christ, fulfilledprophecies from the Old Testament, references to Jewish Law, and some of the Jewish customsreferred to in the other Gospels.208For example, he only includes 4 parables, while Matthewhas

18 and Lukehas 19.209Because he lists 18 miracles, the most of any of the Gospels,210and themeticulous way that he explains the meaning of the Aramaic words, such as talitha cumi,

211

ephphatha,212 rabboni,213 Eloi, Eloi, lama214sabachthani,215it is apparent that Mark is trying topreserve an accurate description of events in order to impress upon the Gentile Christians thepower and authority of the Son of God.216

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

24 Chapters | 1,151 Verses | 25,944 Words

Who Was Luke?

The name Luke is Roman, a shortened form for either Lucius or Lucanus (Loukas inGreek, Lucas in Latin).217 Tradition says that Luke was from Antioch in Syria,218 probably

206Pherigo, Lindsey P. "Introduction to Mark." The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville,TN: Abingdon Press, 1971, pg. 644.

207Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books, Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,1981, pg. 903.


209 Earle, Ralph. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1964, pg. 510.


320.

211 Mark 5:41212

Mark 7:34213

Mark 20:16214

Mark 15:34

215 Cole, R. Alan. Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans



217Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books, Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,1981, pg. 914.


28/180

28because in the book ofActs, he seems to have a detailed knowledge of matters there, and theChristians there were mostly from Gentile origins. Eusebius of Caesarea, in his history of theChurch in AD 325, said that Luke was a citizen of Antioch.219

Scholars believe that Luke's parents were Gentile, and as a young man he converted toJudaism (referred to as a Hellenistic Jew), and then became a Christian.

220 Paul lists three

Gentiles working with him that are "of the circumcision,"221 and Luke is one of those named.Because Luke used the phrase "in their proper tongue,"222 the vernacular lends itself to the

implication that he was not Jewish.223Dr. Lardner

224 and Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, in his Bible Commentary, believe that

Luke was Jewish (as well as the rest of the Bible's writers),225based on the verse "He shewethhis word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel."

226

Because he was the only one of the Gospel writers to record the Commission given tothe seventy,227 it has been suggested that Luke was one of the seventy. There has also beensome who believe that he was one of the two the Lord appeared to on the road to Emmaus afterHis resurrection. The Luciusof Cyrene

228and the Luciusmentioned in Romans

229were believed

to be the Luke of the Gospel, and thus related to the Apostle Paul. 230These views have prettymuch been abandoned by scholars today because of the lack of supporting evidence.

Since he uses the pronoun "we" inActs231

it is assumed that his first contact with the new

Christians was at Troas at that point of Paul's second journey, and went with him to Macedonia.The reason for this may have been because Paul had become ill in Galatia232(Luke is referred


219Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Avenel, NJ: Wing Books, Random House Value Publishing, Inc.,1981, pgs. 915-916.

220 "The Books of the Bible, Biographical and Historical." The Holy Bible: Edition of the Bimillennium. Canada:American Heritage Society, 1999, pg. 35.221

Colossians 4:10-14222

Acts 1:19


224Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 182.

225 Swaggart, Jimmy. Jimmy Swaggart Bible Commentary: Luke. Baton Rouge, LA: World Evangelism Press,

1996, Vol. 9, pg. 1.

226 Psalm 147:19227

Luke 10:1-20228Acts 11:20229

Romans 16:21

230Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 182.231Acts 16:10232

2 Corinthians 12:7


29/180

29to as the "beloved physician."

233). By following these "we" statements, Luke again met up with

Paul at Philippi on the 3rd journey about 6 or 7 years later (AD 57-58). He accompanied Paul toJerusalem, where Paul was arrested and jailed at Caesarea.234

Tradition indicates that Luke never married, and died at the age of 80235

or 84.236

It is saidthat he was martyred, and was hung from an olive tree in Greece in AD 93.

237

Who Wrote Luke?

According to a second century (AD 170-190) list of accepted Christian writings in Rome(with a brief description of their origin) known as the Muratorian Fragment (a 7th or 8th centurymanuscript discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by L.A. Muratori),238 thisGospel "was compiled by Luke the physician, when, after Christ's ascension, Paul had takenhim to be with him." This is confirmed in Philemon1:24 and 2 Timothy4:11.239 References toLucan authorship of this Gospel, as well as Acts,is also found in the second century writings ofJustin, Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna, a Church Father), Papias, Hegesippus, Marcion (2ndcentury Gnostic), Heracleon (2nd century Gnostic),240 and Irenaeus (who in Against Heresies,said: "Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him");

241as

well as the third century writings of Tertullian(who inAgainst Marcion, c. AD 200-207, said: "Foreven Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul."),242 Clement of Alexandria,Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. The name ascribed to this Gospel in early manuscripts was KataLoukon ("According to Luke").

243 As I mentioned before, what we have are two Gospels written

233 Colossians 4:14


235Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J. Fagan & Son, 1814, pg. 183.


237Braght, Thieleman J. van. The Bloody Theater (or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians) . Scottsdale, PA:Herald Press, 1950.

238Earle, R. "Gospel of Mark." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1975, Vol. 4

Documents

A Study of the Gospels